Did Neanderthals have souls? (Souls and religion)

[Lightnin]

@SiXSwordS

mooooooo

golf clap

Well played, sir. Well played.

[Der_Trihs]

@Quartz

My OP postulates that there are.

And therefore the answer is, “They do if you say they do.” That’s the nature of fiction.

[PatriotGrrrl]

@Daddypants

I would imagine the Abrahamic religions don’t worry about this at all. Since, in their opinion, there is no such thing as evolution. They believe God put us here.

Then your imagination is wrong. Some Christians, including the Catholic church, do believe in evolution (and natural selection).

The Catholic teaching, IIRC, is that hominids were evolving and becoming more and more intelligent. At some point, God intervened and changed some of them (not necessarily just Adam - Genesis is a metaphor) to make them intelligent enough to understand morality and religion, and gave them souls. I don’t know whether this was before or after the division between Neanderthals and Cromagnons.

[hotflungwok]

Ok, so souls are

a soul - something that survives death and passes on to reward or damnation or to the next cycle or whatever.

Does that mean that animal souls get judged and sent to ‘reward or damnation’ like humans do? Given their rather limited behavior specifications, what criteria would be used? How does a cow play a harp? Do birds in heaven have 2 sets of wings? Can animal souls burn forever in hell? Can animals sell their soul to Satan?

[Der_Trihs]

@hotflungwok

Ok, so souls are

Does that mean that animal souls get judged and sent to ‘reward or damnation’ like humans do? Given their rather limited behavior specifications, what criteria would be used? How does a cow play a harp? Do birds in heaven have 2 sets of wings? Can animal souls burn forever in hell? Can animals sell their soul to Satan?

I recall a Far Side with some damned souls looking at a dog sitting nearby.

"I dunno; I always just assumed he was a bad dog."

[Batboy]

When these debates come up, I always wonder if it’s worth mentioning (but never have until now) that according to anthropologists, see Geertz (1984), the ‘primacy of the individual’, the idea of a unique and individual sense of self, is very much a Western thing, let alone an individual soul.

I am not an anthropologist, but I wonder whether there’s a link between this awareness of self and a preoccupation with the idea of a soul. ‘We MUST have one, surely?’ kind of thing.

[dropzone]

@Half Man Half Wit

Did Neanderthals have Buddha nature?

@SiXSwordS

mooooooo

Admit it: you two worked together on that one, didn’t you? :mad:

[bobthebuilder]

@Batboy

When these debates come up, I always wonder if it’s worth mentioning (but never have until now) that according to anthropologists, see Geertz (1984), the ‘primacy of the individual’, the idea of a unique and individual sense of self, is very much a Western thing, let alone an individual soul.

I am not an anthropologist, but I wonder whether there’s a link between this awareness of self and a preoccupation with the idea of a soul. ‘We MUST have one, surely?’ kind of thing.

It seems like the idea of a soul can be found in middle-eastern religion. Both Jews and Muslims believe in souls do they not?

[Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

Anyway, the real question obviously is: Did Neanderthals have Buddha nature?

All sentient beings have Buddha-nature. In the Jataka stories Gautama Buddha was a rabbit, among other things, so Neanderthal would certainly make the grade. I don’t know of any Jataka stories of Buddha being a Neanderthal, but I wouldn’t put it past him - he got around.

Oh, also: Moooooooooooooooo

[kanicbird]

@glee

Does an amoeba count as an animal?

IMHO yes, but may have a hive like mentality.

How come a tree doesn’t have a soul, but a mosquito does?

I don’t know, perhaps is has to do with respiration vs photosynthesis, consumption of O2 may have some relationship to the breath of God.

[Yodalicious]

@PatriotGrrrl

Then your imagination is wrong. Some Christians, including the Catholic church, do believe in evolution (and natural selection).

The Catholic teaching, IIRC, is that hominids were evolving and becoming more and more intelligent. At some point, God intervened and changed some of them (not necessarily just Adam - Genesis is a metaphor) to make them intelligent enough to understand morality and religion, and gave them souls. I don’t know whether this was before or after the division between Neanderthals and Cromagnons.

Can you give me a cite? Not trying to be a jerk, if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. I’m man enough to admit it. I just don’t recall ever hearing that the Catholic Church believes in evolution or natural selection in any way.

[jayjay]

@kanicbird

IMHO yes, but may have a hive like mentality.

Amoebas are in the Amoebizoa kingdom. Not surprisingly, you’re wrong about something.

[PatriotGrrrl]

@Daddypants

Can you give me a cite? Not trying to be a jerk, if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. I’m man enough to admit it. I just don’t recall ever hearing that the Catholic Church believes in evolution or natural selection in any way.

No problem. Many people assume that the Catholic church is the same as fundamentalist churches, or that it has not changed much over the years, but that’s not true.

@pope John Paul II

It can therefore be said that, from the viewpoint of the doctrine of the faith, there are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body, by means of the theory of evolution. But it must be added that this hypothesis proposes only a probability, not a scientific certainty. However, the doctrine of faith invariably affirms that man’s spiritual soul is created directly by God. According to the hypothesis mentioned, it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have been gradually prepared in the forms of antecedent living beings. However, the human soul, on which man’s humanity definitively depends, cannot emerge from matter, since the soul is of a spiritual nature.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19860416en.html

@Pope John Paul II

new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

I might also point out that Catholic universities teach evolution. For example, here is the course catalog of the University of Notre Dame:

http://science.nd.edu/sample_curriculum/biology_courses.html

[Polycarp]

Strangely enough, kanicbird has it more or less correct – on the presupposition that “soul” means something meaningful, of course. (I have no issues discussing the hypothetical nature of a Vulcan/human cross or what might have happened if Hannibal had conquered Rome – but this appears to be a “presume x is true, and explain its impact on y” sort of question.

According to medieval philosophers and theologians, all living things had souls. Plants had vegetative souls responsible for growth and reproduction; animals, animal souls with the character of plants plus mobility, reaction to stimuli, etc. These two types of souls were generally thought to end with the death of the plant or animal. Humans, uniquely, had rational souls which added to the characteristics of animal souls self-awareness, reason, and a moral sense. By God’s grace these souls were made everlasting, that we might survive bodily death and go to Heaven to be with God.

Essentially this view regards a soul as what imbues the living thing with life. Source for this is C.S. Lewis’s study of the underlying assumptions in medieval literature and where they came from, The Discarded Image – a truly fascinating book.

[Quartz]

@Polycarp

Essentially this view regards a soul as what imbues the living thing with life…

Elegant and fascinating. Does modern Christian theology hold that Neanderthals and other hominids also had rational souls? Or is that purely restricted to Homo Sapiens?

What about other religions?

[SiXSwordS]

@Polycarp

this appears to be a “presume x is true, and explain its impact on y” sort of question.

In that spirit, and presuming that at some point a non-rational-soul ancestor evolved into a rational-soul ancestor: would there be any indication in the fossil record of such a transition?

Homo habilis is named based on the ability to use tools. (If the women don’t find you handsome, at least let 'em find you handy.) Can we expect to find a missing homo animus?

[jayjay]

@SiXSwordS

Homo habilis is named based on the ability to use tools. (If the women don’t find you handsome, at least let 'em find you handy.)

Hah! I love that Thag Green. What a card!

[monavis]

This debate has led me to wonder just what a souls is? I think the idea of a soul came about when someone was in a coma, the early people saw a person who was unconscious wake up and thought they had another life!

[SiXSwordS]

Let me ask another way:

Presuming this x (i.e. the existence of a soul) is there any impact on any observable y?

I should point out that although I’m using Polycarp’s language, I mean this as a general question. Aside from being subject to being sent to hell, does the soul offer some other benefits? Is it possible that Neanderthal became extinct because they weren’t outfitted with an appropriate soul?

[RaftPeople]

@kanicbird

I don’t know, perhaps is has to do with respiration vs photosynthesis, consumption of O2 may have some relationship to the breath of God.

Plants have respiration and photosynthesis. They consume O2 during respiration and produce it during photosynthesis. Respiration happens constantly, photosynthesis only when there are leaves and light.